AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

ci: don't run shard 2/12 ubsan without parallel.

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Rusty Russell

80/100 · Strong
ci: don't run shard 2/12 ubsan without parallel.

3974806e5af added this:
CI: Try not running group 2/10 UBSAN in parallel.

It's being killed with signal 143, which means docker isn't happy; too much memory consumption?

But since we're now at 12 groups, that probably doesn't apply (it
might not have even before, in the two years since that commit since
so may things have been added). And it caused this shard to take over
2 hours and timed out.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Uses a recognizable type or scope✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit changes a single CI (Continuous Integration) test configuration line. It removes a setting that forced one specific test shard to run without parallel workers, because doing so made the shard take over two hours and time out. There is no change to the actual Core Lightning software, its network protocol, wallet handling, or any user-facing behavior. It is purely an internal testing infrastructure tweak.

Recommended action

No security action needed. This is a CI configuration change. Reviewers may verify that the shard now completes within the timeout and that ASan/UBSan still catches issues, but the change itself introduces no security risk.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.